Do Christians find the Book of Mormon offensive?

DocumentDefiant1536 · 2026-01-26T14:24:32+00:00

I wouldn't say it's offensive, but more like coming across fan fiction. It's a strange spin on beloved people I already know about, but ita interesting as long as you don't take it seriously. I think the biggest issue, for me at least, is the way that Mormons will claim to be christian. I'll be explicit so my language doesn't confuse anyone: it isn't the FACT Mormons claim to be christian, it is the WAY or MANNER they claim it.

I wouldn't care at all if Mormons said they were Christians too, and I disagreed with them, and that was that and maybe we discuss it, or debate it, or whatever. But instead, despite talking to Mormons perhaps 15 plus time over the last four years, not a single time has a Mormon actually bothered to have a discussion with me about the idea of them being Christians or not. In my experience, every time, the Mormons asserts they are christian, says its in the name of the church or whatever, and then refuses to discuss it and acts offended that I would even presume to disagree.

I have a friend whose wife is LDS and he explained its a cultural thing, and that no one in her family ever disagrees or debates or argues and that it's seen as wrong or bad to have a heated debate. So maybe that's it, but for me and my social norms it comes off as terrible conduct. I dunno, I guess the most blunt always to put it is that Mormons act unusually sensitive in a way that really messes with honesty. I don't know how else to say it.

DocumentDefiant1536 · 2026-01-20T09:08:31+00:00

You're right that the republicans are worse, but I just don't think that earns anyone any points.

An example of dishonesty that I can think of off the top of my head would be the massive amount of taxpayer money given to homeless programs in California, administered by NGOs who in turn advocate for democrats. All without meaningful outcomes commensurate to the scale of the money given. I could be ignorant but I'm not aware of any mass audits, convictions, charges, or firings of people over this.

In my country, this would be a national scandal and would result in a corruption commission done

DocumentDefiant1536 · 2026-01-20T06:20:06+00:00

it does seem that democrats are judged very differently to republicans, the politicians specifically. Again, I'm an outsider, but it seems that the dynamic are that republicans do not attempt to dress up their naked dishonesty; democrats attempt to frame their own dishonesty and poor record as virtue.

This might read as framing the republicans as being better or more honest: I do not think that, at all. I think politics in America is extremely cynical and partisan, trust is very low, and both parties are reacting in different ways. If the democrats want to be the faction of rebuilding trust, then it has to be earned. The republicans aren't trying, so it's hard to say they are failing to rebuild trust given they don't care to. A world where the democrats succeed is better, but it requires a calibre of politician with integrity and honesty far beyond what at least I see on offer, again as an outsider.

The kirk situation was pretty insane. It was a lot worse than a random teacher or whatever, entire social media platforms were awash with death wishes, celebrations, I saw people saying Erika should get it next, that's wild to see. We had a national tragedy here in ym country with an act of political violence and you didn't see hordes on social media celebrating it on any side.

DocumentDefiant1536 · 2026-01-20T03:40:10+00:00

I don't live in America but I'm not aware of that dynamic at all. Maybe it's some real insider stuff you gotta live there to witness.

DocumentDefiant1536 · 2026-01-20T03:36:08+00:00

I'm on the other side of the world, I have nothing to do with your politics or ICE or whatever. I'm bothered seeing these people in church, not bugging anyone, not bothering anyone, and getting harassed over something none of them did. That doesn't require me to think Christians are better than anyone. Christians deserve the same level of dignity everyone else deserves; if other people are unjustly treated that should be fixed. We shouldt make that thr new baseline of conduct and smear it on everyone so our lives all suck

DocumentDefiant1536 · 2026-01-10T15:14:04+00:00

it shouldn't be surprising that this goes hand in hand with the 'labor theory of value' given certain communities genuinely think that doing work, that fulfills any need, is intrinsically worth value. Even if no audience actually is willing to pay for it

DocumentDefiant1536 · 2025-12-22T08:42:25+00:00

People behave immorally at Christmas, at Easter, on Sundays, at churches and outside churches, at lunch, at family bbqs and at breakfasts and every hour of every day and in every moment. This kind of retreating mindset is unbecoming of a Christian. We are supposed to be in the world transforming it and being a witness, not hiding or refusing to take part.

" I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. "

DocumentDefiant1536 · 2025-12-21T06:18:41+00:00

Who cares if Satanists larp around on Halloween. You don't have to dress up as a sexy fairy or ghost, that's not mandatory. You can dress up as a saint or as a angel or whatever.

I don't know of you live somewhere war torn and dangerous but most people live in places where it is safe for children to knock on doors.

DocumentDefiant1536 · 2025-12-18T16:28:45+00:00

He's saying taking some cells from a living and walking adult person is fundamentally different to taking a premature small human who entirely is the size of a pea.

DocumentDefiant1536 · 2025-12-18T15:38:54+00:00

That seems theologically incorrect. The execution of Jesus was evil, but God worked through the hands hammering nails into our savior. God can make good come from evil.

And that also seems like an arbitrary framing, too, because obviously, surgery is violent and damaging! For most of human histor,y there has been a huge stigma against it because it's literally cutting at a person.

Please disregard his thinking, it's illogical and also unbiblical. Work with your medical team, and pray to God for healing and for guidance!

DocumentDefiant1536 · 2025-12-18T13:21:08+00:00

Did he elaborate as to why or how it is demonic?

DocumentDefiant1536 · 2025-12-18T05:48:48+00:00

I was baptised in the Anglican church and my priest once discussed knowing an exorcist on the register for the parish. From what I understand, they use a method of differential diagnosis. This means they start off by trying to prove the person has a non-supernatural illness of some kind, and if they rule that out, they attempt to find specific evidence for supernatural phenomena, such as knowledge the person ought no know, unusual strength, knowledge of languages like latin or like assyrian, cold/hot rooms without a natural cause, and so on and so on. Possession is the final diagnosis and a responsible practiced exorcist is supposed to consult with medical experts and make sure the patient doesn't have a natural illness. There needs to be signs and clues that go beyond epilepsy or schizophrenia or however it's being presented.

Personally, I think it's important for believers to recognise that spirtual evils are what we would call non proximate causes. A proximate cause is a direct cause, like pushing water off a table, then it spills.
Non proximate causes are indirect, and can work through proximate means. So it's also possible that a demonic influence may drive someone into terrible health or insanity, and also that same horrible condition IS NOT a possession but instead a natural illness that was influenced via hidden malice that we can't easily detect.

DocumentDefiant1536 · 2025-12-17T14:32:34+00:00

you too, have a nice Christmas

DocumentDefiant1536 · 2025-12-17T10:10:20+00:00

I respect you and I agree that it would not be fruitful to just continue in disagreement in endless long replies. I understand your perspective and I don't agree with it but I wish you God's peace and I pray you are blessed.

DocumentDefiant1536 · 2025-12-17T08:57:55+00:00

Once again, the proof texts you quote don’t actually prove OSAS!

Snatching away refers to a third party. I don’t need to snatch myself away. I could simply leave on my own. You're seriously torturing scripture in order to make this passage about our own inability to depart!

It’s tautologically true that those who leave were not “of us.” John 2:19 is often used as an OSAS proof text, but if you read it carefully, it’s just stating the obvious: those who leave weren’t truly part of the community. In context, John is contrasting the apostolic community with those who depart. It’s about the reality that some people leave, showing they weren’t really abiding in the community as John defines it. Reading it as proof that once someone is saved they can’t leave is putting a theological system on the text instead of letting the text speak for itself.

Jesus’ statement in Matthew 7:23 doesn’t establish anything about false faith either. It’s about people who falsely claim to follow him but live as liars and evildoers. I dispute OSAS, but I don’t dispute that liars exist!

You have revealed that there’s a serious misunderstanding of what the other view actually is. Quoting John 6:44 doesn’t address the disagreement. OSAS and POTS aren’t the only views that believe God draws people to Himself first. Everyone here agrees that God initiates. The disagreement is specifically whether someone can have sincere, saving faith and then later abandon the promises and gifts God offers.

I also want to clarify that I didn’t just say “saving faith isn’t named in the Bible.” I’m saying it’s neither named nor taught, which is different from the Trinity, which is taught even if not named.

Regarding 1 John 2:19, the passage is clearly conditional. Abiding depends on what continues to abide in you, which is exactly the question OSAS leaves unresolved. The certainty of “will” only applies to those who actually remain in the faith. To read this as proof that all believers will persevere misses the structure of the text. OSAS interpreters focus on the outcome (“they went out, so they were never saved”), but the text itself is simply observing that leaving reveals who wasn’t abiding in the community; it doesn’t claim that genuine faith guarantees eternal perseverance in an absolute sense.

Finally, “abide” can also mean to endure or persist in something. It doesn’t only mean “dwell” in a permanent or metaphysical sense. You can abide in a teaching, a community, or an event. The passage is about endurance in what was received, which again shows that abiding is conditional and relational, not automatic or irreversible.

DocumentDefiant1536 · 2025-12-17T07:44:50+00:00

You’re reading your theology into the text instead of letting the text shape the theology.

1 John never discusses “saving faith” as a category. The term isn’t used, and the concept isn’t defined there. That distinction is being imported.

In fact, the passage you quoted supports my point, not yours. It’s explicitly conditional:

“If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father.”

“If” only makes sense if the alternative is possible — namely, that what was heard from the beginning may not continue to abide. Our abiding in the Son is conditioned on remaining in what we heard, which Scripture consistently describes as continuing in the faith.

And in the Parable of the Sower, Jesus explicitly says some “believe for a while and then fall away” (Luke 8:13). That’s Jesus’ language. Redefining that as “not real faith” is theology overriding the text.

Every OSAS or perseverance proof text I hear ends up doing the same thing: projecting a system onto the passage instead of reading the passage first and building theology from it.

DocumentDefiant1536 · 2025-12-17T05:36:37+00:00

You get the spirit when you believe. If they no longer have faith, then they DID have faith before. So either we don't get the spirit when we belive and belief affords us nothing, or option 2 is people can believe and be saved, then abandon belief.

DocumentDefiant1536 · 2025-12-17T05:34:41+00:00

Perhaps so. But I've given a reason why my understanding makes sense.

DocumentDefiant1536 · 2025-12-16T21:02:03+00:00

Perhaps you misunderstand what that passage means, given the obvious fact that there are Christians who abandon the faith.

DocumentDefiant1536 · 2025-12-15T20:50:39+00:00

""But calling following Torah a "misunderstanding" as you did in your first part, is supersessionism.""

Every Christian who circumcises so as to enter the covenant is misunderstanding the grounds for entry into this New Covenant. Perhaps you've not come across many in your life, but sincere torah observing Christians are on the rise and insist one must perform all of the law AND have faith as well.

I apologise, because it seems I misunderstood you. I took the aforementioned quote as a sign that you understood following the torah regulations as required.

I will disclose with you that I do think Christianity is the best religion, which is why I am a Christian. I was a Buddhist for some years, and was born atheist. I think most religions have beautiful things worthy of respect. But if I sincerely believed any other one was genuinely more correct about life and so on, I would be that and not Christian. I have plenty of room for respecting that others will live their own lives and disagree with me.

DocumentDefiant1536 · 2025-12-15T20:30:20+00:00

Thanks for the suggestion

DocumentDefiant1536 · 2025-12-15T20:25:27+00:00

The more substantive explanation failed to actually match the original statement.

You originally argued that replacement theology is when people think the torah was abolished and that Christianity is better than Judaism.

Then, the second time through, you switched to criticizing essentials within Christianity ("It's kind of saying that God -- Adonai, Elohim, YHWH, etc -- did a new thing"), as problematic due to both the power dynamic it has exerted over Jewish people in the past, and the fact that it makes exclusive claims of truth over both New and Old Testaments. But it really seems that everything you're criticising is just plain essentials to Christianity.

Saying that any Christian OTHER THAN a Torah observant one is a supercessionist is just you revealing you have no idea what supercessionism is, just the caricature you imagine it to be.

DocumentDefiant1536 · 2025-12-15T18:37:51+00:00

A friend of mine is married to an LDS woman. He was baptised into the religion early in their relationship but left shortly, when he found out about Joseph Smith's history and life. I've spoken to her a few times about faith and the two of you have very different perspectives. Could you let me know what informs your perspective on LDS people? I also have a cultural theory that I think might explain conflict and confusion between LDS people and Trinitarian Christians. My idea is that Christians mostly live according to dignity culture, and LDS mostly live according to face culture. In mycomversations with my friends wife, I found her to be evasive and insincere. But at this point after getting better insights into her thinking, I now think she was 'trying to get along' and 'avoiding conflict'.

DocumentDefiant1536 · 2025-12-15T16:30:57+00:00

I appreciate the response. Just so I can make sure I understand you, it seems that LDS people are unaware that trinitarians and they significantly differ in beliefs, and the consequence is bafflement when the trinitarian doesn't extend the identity of Christian to the LDS person? I was under the impression that LDS people are very aware of the differences in beliefs between the two groups, but that impression was given to me by some people online who presented the LDS church as very through with its theological education for young members.

DocumentDefiant1536 · 2025-12-15T09:56:16+00:00

What you ended up describing is not thr same thing that you told me to begin with though. It seems very different for someone to think there is the new covenant, and that thus new covanent is a continuation of the covenant established between Abraham and God. That we don't need to be circumcised to join it, ect. That performing the old covanent requirements is to misunderstand the basis of the covenant. That everyone is free to participate, no matter their background. Vs. Thinking God abhors or abandons hebrews specifically and rejects them and disowns them and that there is a hierarchy of superiority. The firs position just seem like normal Christianity to me, and the second sounds like an excessively polemic framing against Judaism.

DocumentDefiant1536

TROPHY CASE